News-Record.com

What do you like or dislike about the proposed budget for Guilford County?

Tuesday's lead editorial.

Patients put their lives in their doctors’ hands. In return, physicians owe patients more information about themselves.

The N.C. Medical Board, a state regulatory body, proposes creating a profile on its Web site of each licensed physician and physician’s assistant in the state, including professional credentials, affiliations, disciplinary actions, criminal records and malpractice judgments and settlements.

The North Carolina Medical Society, a private professional association, protests. It wants malpractice judgments disclosed only if a review by independent specialists concludes that the patient received substandard care.

The Medical Society raises a valid concern. Some malpractice suits lack merit. That doesn’t mean they can’t prevail in court or at least force the physician to spend time and money defending his or her actions. Sometimes the easiest recourse is to settle for a nominal amount. But revealing on the Medical Board Web site that a malpractice suit was “settled” makes it appear that the physician admits he or she made a mistake.

That’s the unfair aspect of the Medical Board’s proposal. It’s partially addressed by the opportunity physicians will have to write a brief explanation of the circumstances of each case. But it’s also part of the price of full disclosure.

Two years ago, the board created a Consumer Access to Physician Information task force following “sustained criticism of the paucity of public information about North Carolina licensed physicians,” Thomas W. Mansfield, the director of its legal department, explains. The board aims to fix that.

These aren’t consumer complaints about auto-repair shops, although that’s important information to have. This is about choosing a surgeon. Knowing which doctor has lost two or three malpractice suits might influence a patient’s decision. That doesn’t tell the whole story, but keeping it hidden is rarely in the public interest.

The Medical Society’s appeal to let “two actively practicing experts of the same specialty as the licensee ... review the medical care leading to each malpractice payment” sounds reasonable enough. They might contend the physician was unjustly blamed. If the board wants to take that step, fine. It can post the experts’ opinion with the information about the judgment or settlement. But that shouldn’t provide a basis for withholding information.

The board will collect comments from the public and physicians before making its final decision. Its statements so far indicate it’s willing to take some heat from the medical community while serving the greater good — letting consumers know as much as possible about the professionals they trust with their lives.

Tuesday's No. 2 editorial.

Sen. Tony Rand’s intentions are good. But his bill is not.

Wanting to help at-risk youth, the Cumberland County lawmaker has introduced legislation that would require North Carolina college students to mentor public school students.

Students working toward a bachelor’s degree in public and private colleges in the state would have to spend 20 hours a semester tutoring or mentoring a public school-age student.

In an age of budget-tightening, maybe Rand thinks the ever-renewing field of college students is a rich resource to tap. But putting Rand’s plan into action would be more problem than payoff.

Rand proposed the bill in honor of UNC-Chapel Hill’s Eve Carson and Duke’s Abhijit Mahato, who were slain earlier this year. Carson had mentored middle-school students in Durham, doing the community service work Rand wants all college students to provide.

But not all students are going to have the talents or temperament of Carson. Just because she did a good job as a mentor doesn’t mean all — or even most — college students would.
Also, college students’ priority should be getting themselves through school. Time already is tight for many college students, especially those who are working. Putting more on them may cause them to do less well on their own classroom work.

A mentoring program of this magnitude also could be a headache for school systems. Burdened with too many programs, they shouldn’t have another one foisted upon them.
If legislators want to support a mentoring program for at-risk youth, they should instead look at expanding the Minority Male Mentoring Initiative now being run in a few of the state’s community colleges. It pairs faculty with students at risk of dropping out, providing those students with scholarships and extra services. Students in the program often go on to be providers of community service.

Expanding this successful program to more community colleges would be better than passing Rand’s well-meaning, but misguided, bill.

Wednesday's lead editorial.

High Point police Officer Josh Clowdis walked into a hornet’s nest on March 26.

He answered a domestic disturbance call and found a bloody battle under way between Lori Ann Hopper, armed with a box cutter, and her husband, Douglas Lee Hopper Sr. Few scenarios can be more dangerous and difficult.

The encounter ended with Clowdis shooting and killing Lori Hopper, 38, and subduing Douglas Hopper, 37, with pepper spray.

Following normal procedures, High Point police asked the SBI to investigate. The state agency reported its findings to Guilford County District Attorney Doug Henderson, who concluded last month that Clowdis acted properly. The action “unfolded so quickly it’s hard to see what the officer could have done differently,” Henderson said Monday.
High Point police Chief Jim Fealy, whose department conducted its own investigation, said Clowdis had no choice. Lori Hopper was attacking her husband, stabbing him at least once after Clowdis arrived and ignoring the officer’s order to stop.
“There’s no doubt in my mind (Douglas Hopper) was in grave danger,” Fealy said Tuesday. “I’m sorry that someone lost her life, but that was not the officer’s decision.”

Douglas Hopper disagrees.

“That is not true,” he said Monday. “Everything that they’re saying is nothing but a lie.”
Hopper declined to give his account of the incident on the advice of his attorney, he said.
Fealy remembers a different statement by Hopper that night at High Point Regional Health System, where Hopper was treated for stab wounds.

“He told me he couldn’t recall the incident. He couldn’t recall what happened,” Fealy said.
Memories of the Hoppers’ violent, two-year marriage haunt Lori Hopper’s mother, Rose Anne Strickland of Thomasville. She believes Lori might have been trying to protect herself, citing the autopsy report that said her daughter had contusions on her head, chest and upper extremities.
“Maybe she took as much as she could take and couldn’t take no more and it all came out,” Strickland said.

While expressing confidence the confrontation was handled correctly, Fealy said police haven’t put it behind them but will stage a re-enactment for training purposes. “We want to learn all we can and tweak what we do,” he said.

Every law-enforcement agency should follow similar procedures in cases like this: internal and independent external investigations, as well as training exercises, to review what happened and what might have happened differently.

An officer’s split-second reaction under life-and-death pressure can be seen as the only recourse at the time. Examined in slow motion, other options might reveal themselves. The key to constantly improving police work is to never stop looking for the perfect response the next time an officer walks into a hornet’s nest.

Something’s not right with this picture: The city of Greensboro is about to annex the Cardinal and other areas — and take on the responsibility of providing services for them — yet it is planning to stop repaving streets for a year because it lacks the money.

Maybe the city should get its priorities in order. With engineers having determined that one-fifth of the city’s streets need to be paved immediately, repaving should be a priority.

The one-year moratorium idea came about as a way to avoid raising taxes. City Council member Robbie Perkins rightly calls the move penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Raleigh, where such a stunt was pulled a few years ago, still feels the effects of delayed maintenance. In a year, small road problems can grow to be bigger and more costly.

But delaying repaving now — when the costs of asphalt and other petroleum products are skyrocketing and aren’t likely to decline — is especially ill-advised.

The price for a ton of asphalt in Greensboro has doubled in the last five years, from $30 to about $60. And let’s not forget the fuel required to run the repaving vehicles.

Greensboro isn’t a rust-belt city like Youngstown, Ohio, that is so strapped for cash it has been forced to abandon parts of its city. Delayed maintenance isn’t their problem. There, they’re bulldozing houses and pulling up streets, as blocks become abandoned.

Still what Youngstown is doing is more principled than what’s been proposed for Greensboro.
It would even be worse if the idea behind the moratorium was that it would spur city voters to pass the transportation bond package that will be on the November ballot. It likely will contain about $15 million for maintenance over 10 years. There is no guarantee that package will pass — and even if it does, the annual $2 million of repaving still would have been delayed.
Some see Greensboro’s future as being in transportation. The way it looks now, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

Are foster children entitled to live in a smoke-free home?

Or would no-smoking rules limit an already scarce resource: the number of people willing and eligible to serve as foster parents?

This bill filed in the state House of Representatives directs the Legislative Research Commission to investigate the possible impact of a foster home smoking ban.

Thursday's lead editorial.

As the smoke cleared (or did it?) Tuesday night following his epic, sometimes bitter, primary duel with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama emerged as the presumed Democratic presidential nominee.

Obama, the youthful 46-year-old with the rock-star charisma, is the first African American standard bearer for a major party in U.S. history -- a hopeful sign that any of us can grow up to be president.

Arguably, the tide turned decisively in Obama’s favor on May 6, when he handily won what was expected to be a close primary here in North Carolina, and barely lost to Clinton in Indiana. His improbable rise derailed what once had seemed an unstoppable march for Clinton toward an equally significant milestone as the first female major-party nominee.

Clinton made party leaders queasy Tuesday night with coy intimations that it’s still not over. She offered warm words for her rival after winning in South Dakota and losing in Montana, but chose neither to concede to Obama nor to reveal what lies ahead for her. Reports suggested Wednesday night she would suspend her campaign on Saturday and possibly endorse Obama.

That still leaves several unresolved plot threads in this political high drama.

For instance, will Clinton press to become Obama’s running mate? She seems open to the idea. But it’s not clear that the so-called “dream ticket” would be the slam dunk some envision --especially if Obama appeared forced to pick her because it was her choice, not his.

And will Clinton’s insistence on not going gently, if at all, wedge permanent divides in the party and make hollow her assurances that she will do all she can to ensure that the Democrats retake the White House?

Meanwhile, Obama softened his rhetoric toward Clinton in recent weeks, saving sharper words for the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain. For all the twists and turns in the Democratic saga, the general election could be even more compelling.

Both candidates draw clear distinctions on such bedrock policies as health care, the economy and Iraq. Both bring obvious assets and liabilities into the fall campaign: McCain fancies himself a maverick but has reversed some of his positions in attempts to solidify his conservative credentials. Obama offers a fresh face and the mantra of change, but his resume is woefully short in comparison with McCain’s.

Both also must deal delicately with iconic party leaders with whom they can’t live — and can’t live without.

McCain needs the support of an unpopular president, George W. Bush, to raise money and appeal to the GOP base, even as he tries to distance himself from Bush.

And for Obama there’s the lingering question of Mrs. Clinton, who may have left the building after speaking Tuesday night at a New York college, but who obviously wasn’t ready to leave the stage.

Thursday's No. 2 editorial.

Children should live in a safe, healthy home. That includes foster children.
How much does secondhand cigarette smoke cloud that ideal?

The question is worth a study, several North Carolina legislators think. Led by Reps. Hugh Holliman, D-Davidson, and Tricia Cotham, D-Mecklenburg, they’ve filed a bill directing the Legislative Research Commission to find out “whether smoking prohibitions that apply to foster care homes are having an impact on the availability of foster care homes.”

Holliman, Cotham and the bill’s co-sponsors are wise not to try to impose a smoking ban in foster homes without considering possible unintended consequences. Most importantly, would that action cause some foster parents to give it up, tightening the already too-small supply of homes?

While everyone should agree a smoke-free environment is better for children, it’s more critical they have a decent place to live with caring adults to look after them, smokers or not.
There should be plenty of information on the subject, as several states already have set smoking restrictions for foster parents. Their experiences might strengthen arguments for similar action in North Carolina.

The National Foster Parent Association endorses smoking restrictions, noting “it has been demonstrated that there has been no (decrease) in the number of available placement homes in states that limit the use of tobacco products in their foster homes. ...”
Action on Smokers and Health, a nonsmokers’ rights advocacy organization, cites court rulings that prisoners can’t be forcibly exposed to secondhand smoke, arguing that children in foster care “are entitled to no less protection.”

That view could be extended to apply to all households, not just foster homes. The state shouldn’t go that far, but it could justify rules intended to give foster children a healthier living environment.

As long as it doesn’t cost those children a home in the first place.

Friday's lead editorial.

A state audit of N.C. A&T’s finances included this scolding: “Employees should not be allowed to award scholarships to themselves or immediate family members.”

Whether that actually happened or not, A&T did fail to set and follow basic rules for distributing grants and aid.

“We noted a number of questionable scholarship awards and deficiencies in documentation supporting awards. Most of the questionable awards were made to relatives of University employees,” the annual financial audit issued last week noted.

The university attributed the problems to poor documentation.

“We do not feel that it is improper to award scholarships to deserving students who happen to be family members,” Robert Pompey, vice chancellor for business and finance, wrote in response to News & Record questions. “However, we do understand that it is imperative that we maintain adequate support and documentation for all scholarship awards, especially those involving family members.”

He added: “The managers that ultimately approved these awards were not family members of the students. We have taken disciplinary actions against the individual responsible for maintaining the scholarship forms.”

The auditors said they couldn’t tell who approved scholarships in some cases: “We examined a total of 81 awards to relatives of employees over the past two years. The University was unable to locate authorizations for 25 of these awards.”

Some of the authorizations found were questionable. One grant for $5,000, much higher than the average of $1,528 for that type of scholarship, “was authorized solely with the Financial Aid Director’s signature stamp.” In two cases, relatives of employees received scholarships worth thousands of dollars even though their files showed they “did not have financial need that was not met by other funding sources. ... Treasurer’s Office personnel stated that the scholarship was to assist students with significant financial need.”

When so many students rely on financial aid to pursue higher education, the university must demonstrate that all are given fair consideration for limited resources. The audit raises questions about that. Pompey said they’re being addressed:

“We are reviewing policies as it relates to our financial aid awards to insure that we have the criteria in place for awarding scholarships. We have reviewed our scholarship awards for this academic year to make sure all forms are present. Additionally, we have reviewed the individuals receiving the scholarships in question to insure that there are no actual or perceived issues. The university understands the importance of financial support to all of our students.”

State auditors should return as soon as possible to make sure the corrections have been made. It’s not only a matter of dollars but integrity. A&T should not leave the impression that it employs favoritism in the awarding of scholarships.

Friday's First Person essay.

Here, I thought I was driving like a grandma — thriftily trying to squeeze a few more miles per gallon as I crept along in the far right lane on I-40/85.

Seems, though, I’m part of a hot trend: I’m a hypermiler, listed as No. 2 this week on an Internet trend watch list. If I can be a member of a movement I didn’t know existed, then count me in. You, too, may be taking part if you drive your car so that it exceeds its federal fuel economy standards.

I became introduced to hypermiling this week when I saw a CNN story. It featured the movement’s guru, Wayne Gerdes. He demonstrated some driving techniques that I’ll leave by the roadside, such as shutting off the engine while driving or tailgating a tractor-trailer to ride its downdraft.

Once I read more on the Web about it (see www.cleanmpg.com), I realize I am probably to hypermilers what the after-dinner bike rider is to the serious cyclist. Still, I’ll keep trying in my own way to bump up my mpg in my ’99 Neon. My personal best was in the high 30s, maybe 40. (My car’s 2008 highway rating is 29 mpg.) But I can’t take complete credit. That day, the wind was my friend.

Interested in hypermiling? My advice will sound like it’s from your long-ago driving instructor: Drive slowly. Exchange the lead foot for a light one. Accommodate what’s ahead. See that red light? Make sure it’s green by the time you get to it.

Hypermiling hasn’t taken off in the Triad. The speed demons still reign, and I’m often their nemesis. I know not to be too offensive in my slowness. When there aren’t multiple lanes, I’ll almost do the speed limit.

I do get my kids antsy. There’s a stretch of little-used road next to the train tracks near where I live. When driving home I’ve practiced my hypermiling techniques on it, with kids as companions. It’s amazing how far you can coast without hitting the gas.

— Elma Sabo

Saturday's No. 2 editorial.

At first glance, the anger of some being annexed by the city of Greensboro might seem justified. Why should property owners with functioning septic systems and wells be forced to hook up to city water and sewer lines?

The cost, which is likely to run into the thousands, could strain the finances of many households. Who wouldn’t feel doubly put upon having to struggle to come up with the money to pay for services that are seen as unnecessary?

From a short-term view, the city’s edict just seems like big government at its worst. But look at it from a long-term perspective and it makes sense why the city wants to get people to stop using wells and septic systems.

Annexed areas are urbanizing — and so they face urban problems, such as pollutants that can contaminate well water. Development can turn a drinkable well into a hazardous one.
Septic systems have their own pollution issues. While well-maintained systems can run for decades without problems, our area’s clay soil has its limits. Great for making pottery, it’s not the best for perking. “Eventually septic systems fail,” says Allan Williams, the city’s water resources director.

With public health a priority, the city mandates that property owners in newly annexed areas connect to city services within five years when both water and sewer are made available to them. (The mandate doesn’t apply if only one service is built.)

To minimize contamination, the city also requires, after connection, that the septic system be cleaned out, crushed and filled in. Wells are disconnected to avoid the possibility that they could be hooked onto the city system. But they still can be used for irrigation.

Mandating water and sewer connections might be best for the public’s welfare, but that doesn’t change the fact that annexation is a bitter pill for many, especially those hurting financially. The city should do what it can — whether it’s ferreting out grants or alerting people of property relief programs, such as the homestead exemption — to make a

Saturday's lead editorial.

There’s more than one way to fight City Hall. But it doesn’t include threatening to shoot City Council members if you disagree with them.

And it’s particularly unnerving when the person making the threat reportedly has a small arsenal to back it up. Greensboro police correctly didn’t write off such abhorrent behavior as simply misdirected anger spurred on by slights, real or imagined.

William Marshburn, 57, of Long Valley Road near Summerfield was arrested Tuesday outside the Melvin Municipal Building while protesting a City Council meeting. He showed up, bullhorn in hand, after allegedly making the same threat to a city staff member Monday.

He apparently is upset at being forced into a city he wants no part of. The bur under his saddle is a city policy that requires him to disconnect from a perfectly good well and septic system and hook onto city lines.

Marshburn isn’t alone in viewing that requirement as costly, unfair and unnecessary. But threatening to shoot the decision-makers is no way to make a point.

A follow-up police search of Marshburn’s property lent credence to his words. Five firearms and a device resembling a rigged explosive were confiscated.

This isn’t the first time Guilford elected officials have been threatened. A few years ago, resident E.H. Hennis held up what appeared to be a pipe bomb at a county commissioners meeting and vowed “your body parts will be picked up and put in body bags.”

The outburst came after a long-simmering dispute over removing what county inspectors described as junk from his property. A jury subsequently convicted Hennis of a bomb hoax.
Unrepentant, he still relishes being a thorn in the county’s side and even made a bid, unsuccessfully, for a commissioner’s seat in the May 6 primary.

Whether it’s a misguided play for attention or angrily lashing out at authority figures, such potentially dangerous antics are unacceptable. There’s no choice but to take at face value each and every threat made against those who govern us.

Disputes, justified or not, must be addressed and solved through reasonable debate rather than intimidation.

The city can’t afford to dismiss any threat of violence — implied or otherwise. Whatever happens in court, the city has sent a clear message that it takes them seriously.

Sunday's editorial.

A delegation of North Carolina mayors justifiably was miffed last year when it took its concerns about the rising tide of gang violence to Raleigh and couldn’t get one minute with Gov. Mike Easley.

That group, whose ranks included then-Greensboro Mayor Keith Holliday and current Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, the Republican candidate for governor, had seen enough graffiti-stained walls, tragic shootings and somber warnings from police to want to act then, before it was too late.

A similar contingent returned to Raleigh in late May to press efforts in the state Senate for effective anti-gang legislation. More rushed than reflective, the bill passed 47-0 and its supporters obviously meant well. But it too heavily favors enforcement over prevention.

A companion Senate bill, which also passed 47-0, would help, using local juvenile crime prevention councils to coordinate anti-gang activities. Even so, lawmakers can and should do more to pre-empt gang crime rather than merely react to it.

That’s not to suggest tougher enforcement isn’t needed. Greensboro police last week blamed gang activity as a factor in a 12 percent overall increase in violent crime in the city. And the Senate bill does get some things right.

It targets gang leaders and recruiters for stricter penalties.

It makes involvement in drive-by shootings and retaliation against someone who chooses to leave a gang a felony.

It empowers authorities to seize gang-owned property.

What the Senate bill does not do is consider such fundamental issues as where to put all the additional gang members and leaders arrested as a result of the stiffer penalties. If the bill became law, projections say, it would add roughly 180 inmates to the state’s already overcrowded prisons in its first year, as many as 370 in each subsequent year.

As significantly, the Senate bill eliminates a provision that would erase the gang records or reduce the sentences of youthful offenders who successfully walk away from gangs. Why strike an incentive not to return to gang life?

In the short run, say people who ought to know, an iron-gloved approach might feel good, but it ultimately wouldn’t do much good. That’s not the blathering of bleeding hearts, either. That’s what police say.

“Enforcement alone will not do the job,” Sgt. Mike Richey of the Greensboro Police Department said in 2007. “We can’t police ourselves out of this problem.”

“We want to save the young kids who haven’t really got into the gang yet,” Officer M.W. Caudle, a member of Greensboro’s Gang Enforcement Squad, said in May.

Fortunately, a similar bill in the House retains the allowance for former teen gang members to clear their criminal records. But in reconciling these bills, lawmakers need to listen more closely to the experts.

Attend any of the numerous gang forums in Greensboro and you’ll hear the same message time and again: If we don’t pair tough enforcement with hopeful alternatives to the gang life, we will fail.

A national study by the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute echoed that premise in 2007, concluding that a fatal flaw in many anti-gang initiatives is an imbalance between “suppression” and prevention. It cited as one example New York, which partners police with proven social programs, versus Los Angeles, which concentrates primarily on enforcement. In 2005, New York reported 520 gang-related incidents, Los Angeles, 11,402.

The experts say it, the numbers show it: Any serious attempt to craft a gang bill that works as well as it sounds needs substantive intervention and prevention components.

Should airlines charge passengers by their weight?

A tragedy averted
Guilford sheriff’s deputies arrested an armed man holding a hostage in Browns Summit early Friday morning after a tense, 13-hour overnight standoff. The gunman surrendered after officers fired 20 rounds of tear gas into the house.

The life-or-death dilemma in such cases: when to wait and when to make a move. It’s an inexact science.

But Charles Alton Grinnall’s threats to kill himself and his former girlfriend seemed grounds enough to ultimately force the issue. He had fired several shots from the house, and he obviously was agitated. But negotiators also correctly guessed that if he hadn’t harmed himself or his hostage after 13 hours, he probably wasn’t going to.
And a high-stakes game of wait-and-hurry-up ended well.

The Sheriff’s Office, the Greensboro Police Department and Guilford County Emergency Services worked together seamlessly, as they usually do. “We couldn’t have done it without them,” Maj. Tom Sheppard of the Sheriff’s Office said Friday.

No one was hurt, and Grinnall, 36, is where he needs to be, in the Guilford County Jail.

Filling a longtime voidWhat once was a Winn-Dixie shopping center in northeast Greensboro has been a sore point with area residents for years. Not only had the grocery store shut down and left 10 years ago, but the center became moribund and vacant, aside from the McGirt-Horton public library branch and a Family Dollar store.

Now plans call for expanding and renovating the library with city bond money and exploring options to build senior housing there, as well as a neighborhood center and shops.
While good intentions don’t always translate into brick and mortar, this project has support from the city and nearby residents. And the expanded library will provide a helpful anchor.
There’s cause to be optimistic.

The midday train to Charlotte
The state Department of Transportation plans to add a third train between Charlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh within the next year.

The midday time frame should offer greater convenience and provide an attractive alternative, given the price of gas and clogged workday traffic on I-40/85.

Some skeptics wondered if the restored passenger train service at the historic downtown J. Douglas Galyon Depot would succeed. It has. DOT says ridership increased 26 percent between October 2007 and April 2008.

Some say they take the train because it’s quaint and relaxing. Now it’s becoming practical and convenient, as well.

A break from the campaign
It’s unusual for a candidate for a state office to leave the country for a month during the campaign, but ...

When she’s running for a seat on the N.C. Supreme Court, and she has a chance to teach a summer law course with a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ... in Venice, Italy ... well ...

“I think you just don’t pass up the opportunity to teach with Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” said Suzanne Reynolds, a Wake Forest University law professor and candidate for the state’s highest court.
Ginsburg and Reynolds will lead a two-week course in comparative constitutional law, examining U.S. and Italian legal issues.

Reynolds will stay two additional weeks teaching comparative family law. Wake Forest has its own place in Venice, called Casa Artom.

Reynolds practiced law in Greensboro before joining the Wake faculty 26 years ago.

Considering she’s a first-time candidate, and she’s running against incumbent Justice Bob Edmunds, a Greensboro resident, giving up a month’s campaign time is risky for Reynolds.

But then, who pays attention to judicial races in July?

Tuesday's lead editorial.

Two years ago, the General Assembly passed tough rules on where sex offenders released from state prisons couldn’t live. What it failed to say is where they could live. Now that issue needs to be resolved.

A short-term solution in the 2008-09 budget proposes that ex-offenders stay for a while in hotels at state expense. But it doesn’t add up.

Nationwide, laws that prohibit convicted sex offenders from living near schools, child-care centers and parks make it extremely difficult for them to find housing once they leave prison. In a few extreme cases, parolees even have asked to return to prison rather than wander the streets.

Of course, it’s unfair to force people who have already served their time back behind bars because they have nowhere else to go. It’s also expensive. The state pays $26,000 a year to feed and house each inmate.

Putting up released offenders in low-cost hotels, which already can serve as magnets for criminal activity, seems equally ill-considered. But these individuals have to live somewhere.

North Carolina released more than 1,400 sex offenders last year after each served time for crimes ranging from horrific acts against children to consensual relations with a minor. Without an address, convicted sex offenders can’t comply with strict registration requirements.
That makes law enforcement’s job more difficult and limits the public’s access to online information on these ex-offenders’ whereabouts.

To be fair, a 2007 study by the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch disputes the common perception that “once a sex offender, always a sex offender.” The study concluded that 98.6 percent of those convicted of sex crimes and released from North Carolina prisons remain onetime offenders.

Still, the state needs to proceed with caution in determining how best to release these individuals back into society, for their sake, and for society’s.

One approach may not fit all. Lawmakers should closely examine recidivism rates for specific, sex-related crimes. It’s quite possible that restrictions applied too broadly may unfairly penalize a sex offender who poses no more of a danger to the public than any other ex-offender.

Vastly limiting where a released offender can live places a burden on the state to come up with workable alternatives. Among the possibilities are arranging contracts with homeless shelters and halfway houses. (North Dakota chose to use state funds to build temporary housing.)

Instead of buying time by using hotels and motels as a stopgap measure, the legislature needs to start looking, now, for a doable permanent solution.

Tuesday's No. 2 editorial.

Margaret Mitchell wrote one novel and made it count. So did Harper Lee. It’s fair to judge the two Southern authors solely on the strength of “Gone With the Wind” and “To Kill a Mockingbird,” respectively.

Evaluating North Carolina fourth- and seventh-graders on the results of a one-day state writing test wasn’t fair or helpful. The State Board of Education was correct to drop the requirement last week.

The test was faulted as a constantly changing yardstick that forced schools to guess at the best preparation methods — which may or may not have actually inspired better writing.
In its place, the N.C. Department of Public Instruction will develop a writing instruction regimen for all grade levels. DPI’s track record doesn’t inspire overwhelming confidence, but the idea of making writing a constant priority is sound. Students should write every day from the time they learn their ABCs until they graduate.

Writing requires thinking, one sentence after another. Students must develop ideas, organize them and express them in an orderly narrative in clear, correct language. If done well, the result is effective communication. Good writing is a useful skill in every subject, and it should be a part of the curriculum in every class.

“It can’t just be practicing a couple weeks before the writing test,” Mack McCary, Guilford County Schools’ chief academic officer, told the News & Record last week.

That sort of cram-coaching doesn’t prove anything. Students must mature as writers just as they grow as thinkers — steadily and constantly. There should never be a day in school when they don’t write, just as there should be no day when they don’t think.

Mitchell and Lee actually didn’t just sit down one day and spit out their great novels as if they were taking a writing test. Their work was the culmination of a process of learning to write.
Not everyone can write a masterpiece, but everyone can learn to write better, every single day.

Wednesday's lead editorial.

Taxpayers don’t know much about economic incentives, and what they think they know may be wrong.

A few state legislators aim to change that, but they’re making slow progress.

One is Rep. Pryor Gibson, D-Anson, a House Finance Committee chairman. He recently filed a bill that would require businesses applying for state incentives to tell the N.C. Department of Commerce what deals they’ve been offered by other state and local governments. Some information would be considered a public record; some could be protected as confidential.
The point is, the Commerce Department wouldn’t be suckered into bidding too much to land a new company.

After these deals are made, the public invariably is told the state paid only what was necessary to compete for a lucrative project. Gibson’s bill would reveal the truth.
Predictably, there’s not much support for the measure in the current legislative session. But there is a stronger movement under way, one that aims to ascertain the long-term effectiveness of state incentives policies.

One accomplishment so far was a legislative study released in December that found the state has spent at least $1.2 billion in each of the last three years on incentives, most in the form of tax breaks.

“Are we getting $1.2 billion benefit from it? I probably doubt it,” state Sen. David Hoyle, D-Gaston, told The News & Observer of Raleigh at the time.

While Hoyle may “probably doubt it,” many taxpayers assume that big tax breaks for companies like Google and Dell return dividends because of the jobs they create, the suppliers they buy from, the tax-base growth they account for and the attention they draw to their communities. But no one really knows how much all that’s worth.

Answers may be coming. The legislature has commissioned a study by the Kenan-Flagler School of Business at UNC-Chapel Hill to quantify the economic impact realized for the billions spent. The results should guide future incentives policies.

Some state and local elected officials flatly oppose incentives. But most say it’s too risky to give up tools designed to help North Carolina and its cities and counties lure businesses that otherwise could locate somewhere else.

Gibson and a few like-minded legislators are searching for other ways. His bill contains a provision that says the state should “explore options for multijurisdictional agreements that would limit the use of economic development incentives.”

The pieces fit together. Suppose a business must disclose that it’s considering sites in several Southeastern states. If North Carolina has incentives pacts with its neighbors, all can offer similar deals and refuse to bid against each other — putting an end to the increasingly costly and counterproductive competition.

The keys are knowledge and accountability. The public should know more about these deals so it can hold the state accountable for results.

Wednesday's No. 2 editorial.

The state’s star-rating system for adult-care homes, which takes effect Jan. 1, may not be perfect but it should provide a valuable tool for families trying to decide how best to care for aging parents.

If it doesn’t live up to expectations, the General Assembly always can tweak it later.
Advocates for the elderly are more in tune with the final product than long-term health care providers. Despite their differences, both sides rightly agreed to allow the state to move forward and rate adult-care facilities just as it does those offering child care.

Star ratings, which will be easily accessible online, will be based on reported facility violations and annual state inspection scores. When deficiencies are corrected, scores will be adjusted.
Yet some providers worry that updating delays might unfairly penalize well-run facilities docked for minor violations that were quickly remedied. They suggest families go a step beyond and visit a number of care locations before making a decision.

That’s sound advice, but on short notice, those families’ options could be limited. A star-rating system can help narrow their choices.

With only a handful of states rating residential adult care, North Carolina has the opportunity to move to the forefront. And as baby boomers age and more out-of-state retirees choose to move here, serving and protecting a growing segment of the population becomes even more important.

In the long run, favorable ratings also could benefit providers financially. For instance, the state might consider making higher Medicaid reimbursements to those registering top scores.

But in the short term, star ratings will help take some of the guesswork out of the daunting task of finding the right place for a loved one.

State Rep. Dale Folwell, R-Forsyth, is preparing a bill for possible introduction that would allow 16-year-olds to give blood. The current minimum age in North Carolina is 17.

The American Red Cross supports a minimum age of 16, which is permitted in 24 states. In those states, 16-year-olds account for 2.5 percent of blood donations, an ARC staffer told me.

In our area, high school blood drives are popular. The Greensboro ARC chapter holds around 16 each year and collects about 1,000 units of blood. Production certainly would increase if 16-year-olds were eligible.

What about the safey issue? I couldn't find any sort of report to distinguish 16-year-olds from 17-year-olds on that score, but there is a recent study about young donors that produced some important findings.

Here's a news release, dated May 20, from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The lead:

"Sixteen- and 17-year olds who donate blood are significantly more likely to experience donation-related complications such as fainting and bruising than older blood donors, according to a study in the May 21 issue of JAMA."

More detail:

"Complications (such as loss of consciousness, bruising) occurred after 10.7 percent of donations by 16- and 17-year-olds, 8.3 percent of donations by 18- and 19-year-olds, and 2.8 percent by donors age 20 years or older. Sixteen- and 17-year-olds were significantly more likely to experience any loss of consciousness and major complications than 18- and 19-year-old donors or donors age 20 years or older. Injuries related to fainting were uncommon (86 events among 16- and 17-year-old donors, 5.9 events per 10,000 blood collections), but were 2.5 times more common among 16- and 17-year-old donors compared with 18- and 19-year-olds, and 14 times more likely compared with donors age 20 years or older. Almost half of all injuries occurred in 16- and 17- year-old donors; and many episodes (such as those involving concussion, laceration requiring stitches, dental injuries, broken jaw) were severe enough to require outside medical care."

Access to the full article requires registration.

An abstract is here.

Red Cross people I spoke with, in Greensboro and Washington, stressed that proper preparation is important to avoid complications when giving blood. This is especially true for young donors. It's common sense, really: Get a good night's sleep, eat well, drink plenty of fluids.

Blood services staff also have to keep a close eye on donors.

Many young people are excellent blood donors, and giving them an early start can make them lifetime donors. Think of the lives they can save if they give gallons of blood over the decades.

But the JAMA report adds a caution: Young donors who have a negative experience the first time are much less likely to come back a year later. So it's important to reduce the risk of a poor reaction that first time.

What's your opinion about 16-year-olds giving blood? Are they ready, or still too young?

Thursday's lead editorial.

Finally, school’s out for summer. Park the buses and take a break from rapidly rising fuel prices.

One of the happiest people in North Carolina may be Derek Graham, Transportation Services chief for the Department of Public Instruction.

DPI began the school year budgeted for diesel costs at $1.69 per gallon. Although it was granted three upward adjustments, it never caught up, Graham said. And who can guess where prices will go next year?

The state covers the bulk of school systems’ transportation costs, but shortfalls have to be filled with local funds. Guilford County Schools is budgeting for larger shortfalls next year.
For Graham, summer provides a breather — but also time when local systems should look for savings by streamlining bus routes and developing ways to reduce idling time. “There are gallons to be saved,” he said.

Sharon Ozment, Guilford County Schools’ interim co-superintendent, said Tuesday that the system is working on efficiencies, including opportunities to run smaller buses on some routes.
Some systems may do more. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board will consider several proposals June 24, such as eliminating busing for magnet students who live closer than five miles from school.

With thousands of Guilford County students riding several miles to school, there may be significant opportunities to contain costs here as well.

What isn’t likely to change soon, besides high fuel prices, is lousy mileage by the buses themselves — less than 10 mpg, Graham said. The state did purchase two prototype hybrid buses made by IC Corp. Wake County has one and Charlotte-Mecklenburg the other. The problem: They cost $226,000 each compared to the typical price of about $80,000, Graham said.

High Point’s Thomas Built Buses is developing hybrid engine technology for school buses and plans to unveil its prototype at an expo in Reno, Nev., next month. Cost savings at $3 per gallon would amount to more than $1,000 a year per bus, the company said.

At the price the state paid for its hybrids, the deal would break even only if the bus lasted for 140 years or so.

“As the price of diesel fuel increases and the price of hybrid buses decreases as more are produced, the payback becomes more favorable,” Thomas President John O’Leary said in a news release.

In the meantime, Thomas is experiencing other problems, announcing 190 job reductions this week. High fuel prices pinch school budgets, making it more difficult for them to afford as many new buses. Thomas is North Carolina’s leading supplier, but the next state budget may include less money for new purchases, Graham said.

It follows that the need to conserve fuel may mean using fewer buses, a potentially negative development for the High Point manufacturer.

But precious school dollars are better spent on educating children than moving them, especially at $4 per gallon.

Thursday's No. 2 editorial.

North Carolina teens aren’t the only ones ignoring the state law that prohibits them from talking on cell phones while driving. Law-enforcement officers are ignoring it as well.

A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the 2006 law has not reduced the number of kids who use their cell phones while driving. A separate survey found that enforcement of the law is rare.

This comes as no surprise. The cell-phone law is poorly written and practically unenforceable.
Imagine you’re a state trooper watching for traffic violations. Are you going to exert any effort pulling over young drivers on cell phones when:

1. It’s impossible to ascertain the age of someone driving by. (The law only covers those younger than 18.)

2. The law allows even those in the targeted age group to use their cell phones while driving, as long as they are talking to emergency personnel, a parent or spouse.

With this barn-door loophole, it’s a no-brainer why officers don’t turn on the flashing lights when a chatty teen drives past — and why teens feel free to keep talking and driving.

The truth is that people of all ages should avoid using cell phones while driving. Research has found that pairing talking (or texting) with driving can result in “inattention blindness.” Those of us who have combined the two activities shudder because we have personal knowledge of the term. Still, a law banning cell-phone use for all drivers is unlikely to get much traction.

But parents concerned about the safety of their young drivers don’t have to wait for the General Assembly to act. They can take steps designed to cut down cell-phone use in cars.

Experts suggest that parents craft a driving contract with their teens, with one of the provisions being no use of wireless devices while driving. In other words, parents need to tell their kids that if they use the cell phone while driving, they lose their keys to the car.

That is one punishment that teens won’t ignore.

Friday's lead editorial.

The grand, old King Cotton Hotel came down in mere seconds, helplessly tumbling in a thick cloud of brown dust after a demolitionist’s explosives took its legs away in 1971.

Plans for new hotels in downtown Greensboro seem to come — and go — almost as quickly.
Among recent entries in the center city’s cold-case files:

-- a boutique hotel planned as a centerpiece of the defunct Bellemeade Village project on the former site of North State Chevrolet.

-- a $13 million Hampton Inn & Suites at the corner of McGee and Greene streets that fizzled after developers had second thoughts.

-- a $30 million, 500-room, four-star skyscraper envisioned as part of a mysterious downtown megaproject that threatens to become more urban legend than urban revival as more and more time passes and fewer and fewer details surface.

But hope springs eternal these days in downtown Greensboro. Why not a new hotel? Or more?
No fewer than three new hotels are being considered for the center city, most notably a project envisioned by more than a dozen investors, including such familiar names as downtown builder and developer Milton Kern and businessman Randall Kaplan.

The “upscale” hotel essentially would be built as an extension to Elm Street Center, on the site of the center’s parking deck at Davie Street and February One Place. It could contain as many as 200 rooms and stand as tall as 15 stories.

The hotel remains more speculation than reality, but it offers some intriguing pluses.
Among those assets are the reputations and cachet of the partners. Another is the land, which already belongs to Elm Street Center. One major road block to many downtown projects is the high price of real estate there.

Finally, the hotel would complement the banquet and meeting facilities of Elm Street Center.
It could begin construction as soon as next year, Kaplan says. Or later.

Given market conditions and the economy, odds are it will happen later. Downtown has been a hard market to crack for hotels. And the competition could be fierce.

Counting the freshly renovated Doubletree Hotel on High Point Road, the Proximity Hotel on Green Valley Road and a new Holiday Inn off East Lee Street, the Greensboro area now offers no fewer than 84 hotels with 9,268 rooms.

Experts also caution that financing for such projects is getting harder to come by in a tightening economy.

That said, downtown is creating a critical mass of walkable attractions that make staying there a bonus. Just don’t expect a new hotel to sprout roots overnight. Hotels typically take two to three years from conception to construction.

Then, again, considering the 16 years it took to finally renovate the old Wachovia tower, that’s a mere blink of an eye.

Friday's No. 2 editorial.

You wouldn’t think carding is so difficult. But apparently it is.

N.C. Alcohol Law Enforcement has found that even when clerks check the IDs of underage buyers, more than half the time they still end up selling booze to them.

Hoping to improve things, state legislators are looking at making driver’s licenses more distinctive for those under 21. Bills introduced in the House and Senate call for vertical, instead of horizontal, driver’s licenses for them. The legislation has many backers, including the Division of Motor Vehicles and the legislative Child Fatality Task Force.

Twenty-one states already have vertical licenses for young drivers. The evidence seems mixed on whether they reduce illegal purchases. Compliance checks in some states with vertical licenses have found that clerks still sell to underage buyers, though at a lesser rate than underage sales in this state. It has been reported that sales to minors fell about 20 percent in Virginia after it adopted vertical licenses.

The licenses wouldn’t be a cure-all. But they would likely cut down on underage alcohol purchases — and the accidents and other mayhem that often result from them.

A clear design, such as the one Pennsylvania uses (see above) would make that even more likely to happen. Notice that on it “Junior Driver’s License” and “JR” are prominently displayed. It also doesn’t rely on clerks doing math to figure out age. “UNDER 18 until x/xx/xxxx” appears in one color bar and “UNDER 21 until xx/xx/xxxx” in another.

A vertical license won’t solve the problem of fake IDs. And it would be an empty gesture without continuing aggressive enforcement. Still, a license so distinctive should make its holders think twice about making an illegal purchase. It also should make it easier for busy (and colorblind) clerks to catch those who will still try.

Saturday's lead editorial.

Releasing early to federal authorities illegal immigrants serving time in crowded state prisons speeds up inevitable deportation and saves tax dollars.

Legislation in the General Assembly would have North Carolina join states that already deport some nonviolent offenders to their homelands.

Since 2005, Arizona has shipped off 1,300 prisoners convicted of committing crimes while there illegally at a savings of $17 million. Over more than a decade, a New York state deportation program is credited with saving that state upwards of $140 million.

North Carolina’s plan is less ambitious. Even so, state officials say similar efforts here would save thousands by making available more than 200 prison beds. With an estimated annual cost of $26,000 to feed and house each prisoner, those dollars could add up quickly.

State Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand’s bill authorizes the parole commission to release directly to federal authorities illegal immigrants who have served at least half of their sentences for nonviolent crimes. If caught re-entering the United States, they would have to serve their sentences’ maximum.

The concern, of course, is even tough sanctions won’t be sufficient to deter criminals from again crossing a notoriously porous southern border. However, a shared federal data bank containing arrest information, including DNA samples, should make it easier to identify returnees arrested on new charges. For them, it means serving old sentences without another chance of early release.

An option worth considering is making re-entry a felony for illegal immigrants already convicted in U.S. courts. Adding prison time might discourage anyone now willing to take the risk.

But the reality is illegal immigrants serving sentences in state prisons eventually will be deported anyway. And those prison beds will be put to good use in a crowded correction system.
Also worthwhile is a change to allow the parole commission to release prisoners who are terminally ill or who have diseases that no longer make them a threat to the public. This new policy, approved recently, will save even more money.

Critics say the state merely is passing along the cost of health care to someone else. In most instances, that means federally funded Medicaid. Yet, there also are human considerations.
Showing compassion under such adverse circumstances seems appropriate.

Most importantly, both initiatives will free up limited state prison space that can be put to much better use.

Saturday's No. 2 editorial.

Members of the Piedmont Triad Regional Water Authority must have been in a celebratory mood at their last meeting.

“This is a glorious day,” Darrell Frye said Tuesday.

Frye, a Randolph County commissioner, has been working on the Randleman Lake project for so long he might have thought the glorious day would never arrive. But it did. Not only has the authority constructed a dam and impounded a reservoir on the Deep River, it just secured financing and approved contracts for building a water-treatment plant and pump station. When those projects are done by the end of 2010, clean drinking water will flow to Greensboro, Jamestown, High Point and other regional partners.

A little celebration was in order among those who have worked hard to get this far, but water consumers should restrain their enthusiasm. They have three more summers to endure before they taste the first drop of Randleman water.

The summers of 2008, 2009 and 2010 may bring plenty of rain to the Triad, but last year’s drought and the recent late-spring hot, dry weather warns that harsher conditions are possible.

Water supplies ran short last year, and that can happen again soon. Now isn’t the time to open the taps as if there’s an abundance — yet that’s what some Triad residents are doing already. Lawn-sprinkling systems are gushing, many in sufficient strength to wash streets and sidewalks.

Overall, Greensboro water use is down from a year ago, as it should be if any lessons were learned. But it’s imperative not to forget them, and to adjust behaviors to cut down on waste and extravagance in the use of a vital resource.

Even when Randleman water arrives, celebrations should be tempered by the realization that even a large new lake will provide only a limited, supplementary supply. The key to meeting long-term water needs is to work every day at making the most of what’s available.